If one wants sober and careful analysis of legal issues, the last media outlet one would choose would be MSNBC  and Joy Reid demonstrates why. Taking a page from Jamie Stiehm and using a construct that would be called bigotry in any other context, Reid warns viewers that a Supreme Court full of Catholics are a threat to the progress toward a more secular nation, especially in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case being heard at the Supreme Court today. Can you really trust Catholics to interpret the law, Reid asks (via Truth Revolt and Jeff Dunetz):

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Now, the most famous use of corporate personhood was Citizens United, which opened the door to corporate people spending lots of money to sway elections. The new cases ask whether corporations are not just people, but people who can have religious beliefs. Can the Hobby Lobby Craft Store chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties of Pennsylvania claim that covering contraception in their employees health plans violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration act, which says government cant substantially burden a persons exercise of religion? And can a New Mexico photographer refuse to shoot a gay wedding through her corporate expression of herself? The Obama administration is arguing that corporations are, in fact, not people, and that they cant shield themselves behind religious beliefs. The court that will decide includes six Catholic justices, some of whom have not been shy about asserting their religion. And all of this is taking place as the country becomes more secular. Even as the fervently religious fight even harder than ever to push creationism in taxpayer funded schools, and on science TV shows. And where the question of corporate personhood has gone from whether the railroad has to pay its taxes to whether corporations can be religious people. The question is do you trust this court to make those decisions?

The decision will almost certainly avoid the discussion of corporate personhood, as Lyle Denniston predicted last week at SCOTUSBlog, because the Supreme Court doesnt need to go that far to reach a decision in either direction:

But the Court need not go that far, even if it should lean toward ruling in favor of an exemption within the business world from the ACAs contraceptive mandate. It could decide that the Green family and the Hahn family have a right to exercise their religious beliefs in the way they run their business firms, and that this mandate intrudes on those rights.

Along the way, of course, the Justices would have to find a way around the conventional business law notion that corporations stand apart from their owners. But they could do that with a very narrow definition of the rights of the owners of a company that is so closely held that it is essentially not a public corporation, except in name. Again, though, that would grow out of the rights of the owners, not of the corporate entity itself.

It wouldnt necessarily need to even go that far. The court could find that government cannot establish a crisis in contraception access that makes it a compelling state interest in the first place, which puts it at odds with the RFRA. Well have more on that later, though.

Jeff points out the hypocrisy at MSNBC evident in this clip:

If there was three African-Americans on the court and someone protested that those three black Justices could not fairly judge civil rights cases, there would be screams of racism coming from the media, and those screams would be justified.

However because Joy Reid was questioning Catholic judges, its no big deal. In the world of the mainstream media its only bigotry when directed toward certain groups, blacks, women, Muslims, Hispanics, etc. But Joy Reids comments were just as bigoted as anything coming from David Duke. Ms Reid should be chastised for her bigotrybut that will never happen because Catholics are not one of MSNBCs protected groups.

Its worth noting that the six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court rarely reach any kind of consensus, unless it is a consensus shared by the whole court. Reid bases her argument of religious bias on literally nothing at all but her own prejudice. One suspects its because of the desperation the Left has over the Hobby Lobby case and the HHS mandate in general, but it may just be that Reid has a bias against Catholics in public life apart from this, too.

The historical ignorance of Reid and other 21st Century American citizens, born into a nation whose Founders' revolutionary passion for individual liberty, largely derived from their religious beliefs, now allows Reid and other "progressives" to spout their ignorance, protected by a Constitution which protects their free speech. They would do well to familiarize themselves with the foundations of thought from which their freedoms were derived.

A good beginning for her might be to know who John Adams was, his role in the adoption of our Declaration of Independence, and his beliefs about the qualities which might be most desirable in America's leaders if liberty was to be preserved.

The second President of the U. S., John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, in his First Inaugural's closing paragraph, laid out his understanding of the qualifications for the Office of President.

Inaugural Address of President John Adams

- (Excerpted & reformatted final words)

Philadelphia, March 4, 1797

. . . as something may be expected, the occasion, I hope, will be admitted as an apology if I venture to say that

- if a preference, upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth;

- if an attachment to the Constitution of the United States, and a conscientious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it;

- if a respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual States and a constant caution and delicacy toward the State governments;

- if an equal and impartial regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness of all the States in the Union, without preference or regard to a northern or southern, an eastern or western, position, their various political opinions on unessential points or their personal attachments;

- if a love of virtuous men of all parties and denominations;

- if a love of science and letters and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of the people, not only for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments;

- if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity in the interior administration;

- if an inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturers for necessity, convenience, and defense;

- if a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, and a disposition to meliorate their condition by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them;

- if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this Government and so solemnly sanctioned by both Houses of Congress and applauded by the legislatures of the States and the public opinion, until it shall be otherwise ordained by Congress;

- if a personal esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve the friendship which has been so much for the honor and interest of both nations;

- if, while the conscious honor and integrity of the people of America and the internal sentiment of their own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate every just cause and remove every colorable pretense of complaint;

- if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens by whatever nation, and if success can not be obtained, to lay the facts before the Legislature, that they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand;

- if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world;

- if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived;

- if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age;

and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.

With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power.

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence. - John Adams, First Inaugural

So much for MSNBC's support for Article VI of the Constitution. Sure, they love the Supremacy Clause, but they have a problem with "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

-PJ

16
posted on 03/26/2014 11:26:50 AM PDT
by Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)

A couple of brief observations. 1) The First Amendment does not mention anything about personhood, individual or corporate. 2) If corporations cannot have a religion, how could a state, a city or the federal government?

If the previous “news coverage” of previous SCOTUS arguments give us a hint, then we should not be counting out chickens just yet for a Hobby Lobby victory. Remember when conservative commentators on Fox News were gushing over the grilling 6 SCOTUS justices gave the Obama SG when hearing arguments for the repeal of Obamacare? Ends up being turned on its head in the decision.

My observation is when a justice asks these piercing questions to put an attorney off guard or grill them, they usually have their minds up in favor for the side getting grilled and just do it to clear out the little remaining doubt they have in their minds.

At least the past few years that has been the norm.

28
posted on 03/26/2014 1:29:01 PM PDT
by redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)

There are actually 6 liberals sitting SCOTUS justices. Kennedy is no swing vote at all (liberal). I will let you decide which of the remaining 4 justices is the last "masked liberal." It is not Thomas, not Scalia, not Alito...oops gave it up.

29
posted on 03/26/2014 1:32:35 PM PDT
by redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)

Right, but in case they don,t what every one needs to do is dissolve the corporations.

Obama's SG yesterday fed Kennedy (and Roberts too) the "solution" to keep the contraception mandate intact. He offered that a corporation could just drop the healthcare coverage and have the employees sign up with the Obamacare exchanges. A most clever statist suggestion which the court will take to a 6-3 vote in favor of the government (Kennedy and Roberts will side with the majority).

33
posted on 03/26/2014 1:41:08 PM PDT
by redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)

The left is arguing that as individuals everyone has first amendment religious rights, but once a group forms a corporation, those rights are lost and become subject to government regulation.

If this is the case, then it must also be true that individual journalists have a right to freedom of the press, but once those journalists come together to form a corporation aka New York Times, CNN, FoxNews, then they would also lose their First Amendment rights and be subject to government regulation. If one situation it true, then the other situation must also be true as there is no differentiation between any of our First Amendment rights. They cannot make a case that one right is less or more than the others.

The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. That’s like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.

But the best argument is statutory and Hobby Lobby will win the case on these grounds alone. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act passed in 1993 (under Clinton) already makes it illegal for the government to pass any law that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. In this case we have a department of the executive branch attempting to reinterpret statutory law by issuing regulations. Sebelius clearly does not have the authority to do this, it belongs to the legislative branch alone.

The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. Thats like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.>>>>>

Good thinking, and if that fails the Government should steal from the tax payers and buy our guns for us.

I think a decision against Hobby Lobby will hurt Obamacare even further, enrage Christian/religious people, and propel that into action come November.

Now, the RERAL question is, if the Republicans add to their House majority and take the Senate, just how conservative will they be?

If there is then NOT a repeal of Obamacare, and the Republicans just fiddle around the edges, they lose the faithful, rank and file conservative voters.

They also need to pass major legislation, even a Constitutional amendment if need be, giving us BACK our religious freedom, and reining in an irresponsible Court.

Bottom line: They cannot blow the opportunity by once more being too timid to act. I don’t see how the party can remain long without giving something back to conservatives. Either they rear back from their rush to RINOstan and or we make our own conservative party.

The way the founders set this up...as Chris Rock might say, nobody issues report cards on this stuff, but if large parts of the population have to start thinking about making a choice between following God and following the law, you messed up.

Right, if they do nothing controlling both the house and senate they will most likely be defeated in 2016.

The average people i talk to are more worried about the economy than anything else and that also takes us back to our constitutional rights, so making amendments to reinforce the constitution would kill several birds with one stone.

The average people i talk to are more worried about the economy than anything else and that also takes us back to our constitutional rights, so making amendments to reinforce the constitution would kill several birds with one stone.

There ya go.

This nation has a Spiritual problem and we are trying to fix it with Politics.

48
posted on 03/26/2014 5:13:15 PM PDT
by Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.